Hittinger Coauthors "Antitrust Plaintiffs' Use of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) to Prove Causation and Damages: Revisiting Callahan and Stelwagon" for Bloomberg BNA

Articles / February 8, 2010

Carl Hittinger co-authored with the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle an article for Bloomberg BNA, entitled "Antitrust Plaintiffs' Use of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) to Prove Causation and Damages: Revisiting Callahan and Stelwagon." The piece outlines the use of evidence in civil pleadings, discussing the differences between guidelines established by Twombly and Iqbal with those set by Callahan and Stelwagon, which allow plaintiffs to meet the burden of proof necessary more readily, "but also provide opportunities for defendants to successfully challenge plaintiffs' evidence."

Hittinger outlines both Callahan and Stelwagon, summarizing their impact on future cases. He concludes by stating that the Third Circuit has not yet revisited the provisions set forth in Callahan and Stelwagon, though they set a precedent that plaintiffs must prove amount of damages and defeat evidence of plausible alternative explanations of loss or of defendants' behaviors in order to survive reversal.

The article was also published in The Legal Intelligencer on December 7, 2009.

Related Services


In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Federal Trade Commission's Historic Attempt to Drive a Mack Truck Through the Sherman Act
By Jeffry W. Duffy, Tyson Y. Herrold, Carl W. Hittinger, Justin M. Kadoura
November 21, 2022
Key Takeaways The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a historic statement, setting out a new framework for assessing “standalone” claims of “unfair methods of competition” that can be brought by the FTC alone under Section 5 of the FTC...
Antitrust Advocate
Yer out (for now): MLB dismissed from antitrust lawsuit because of historic antitrust exemption
By Julian D. Perlman
November 8, 2022
In a decision that stunned no one (yet will garner plenty of headlines), a federal district court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Major League Baseball (MLB) on the basis of its storied antitrust immunity. Coming almost on the eve of...
Antitrust Advocate
DOJ Antitrust Brings First Criminal Monopolization Case in More Than 40 Years
By Lindsey Olson Collins, Carl W. Hittinger, Ann M. O'Brien
November 4, 2022
Key Takeaways U.S. v. Nathan Nephi Zito is the first criminal monopolization case in more than 40 years, reversing the Antitrust Division’s practice of pursuing monopolization cases only civilly. The elements enumerated in the Zito plea...
Antitrust Advocate
Hospital Mergers: The Future of COPA Immunity
By Tyson Y. Herrold, Carl W. Hittinger, Marc G. Schildkraut
October 26, 2022
In October 2022, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Public Comment opposing a Certificate of Public Advantage (COPA) for the merger of State University of New York Upstate Medical University (SUNY Upstate) and Crouse Health System, Inc...
Antitrust Advocate
DOJ Antitrust Division Not Backing Down on Labor
By Ann M. O'Brien, Kayley B. Sullivan
September 27, 2022
Despite back-to-back losses in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) first-ever criminal no-poach and wage-fixing cases, the Antitrust Division (the Division) is not backing down from its enforcement focus on labor. In fact, the Division and...